GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Gram Panchayat has filed this writ petition for relief of quashing the order dated 27. 4. 1992 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Chandigarh.

(2.) IN the course of proceedings for consolidation of holdings under the Punjab Consolidation Act, 1948, land admeasuring 628 standard Killa and 6 standard Maria had been reserved for common purposes. The scheme was thus finalised in 1959. It appears that out of this land, land admeasuring 105 standard kanal and 12 standard marla was earmarked for the income of the Gram Panchayat. About 250 standard kanal area was to be used for the passage. Some portion out of this land was earmarked for school and hospital. It is also appears that an area of 370 standard kanal was considered as 'bachat' land (land remaining after earmarking of utilization ). This portion was to be entered in the revenue record in the account of 'khewat' of Zumla Mustarka Malkan'. The observations in the impugned order indicate that sometimes in 1984-85 this land was mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat instead of in the account of 'zumla Mustarka Malkan' such an entry was found to have been made without any order to that effect. This is one of the factors that was considered by the Director of Consolidation while ordering the re-opening of the consolidation scheme which was finalised long back in 1959. Besides that, the consolidation scheme was re-opened on finding that the land earmarked for the school and the hospital had not been used for the said purpose; on the other hand, the school and the hospital had already been constructed on some other land. The Director of Consolidation, therefore, was of the view that the land thus not utilised for the purpose for which it was meant, is available as 'bachat' land and deserves to be appropriated by way of partition among the persons from whom that area was obtained during the consolidation scheme.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have moved the Director of Consolidation of Holdings after about 32 years since the consolidation scheme was confirmed and implemented. It was submitted that such an inordinate delay in filing the petition by itself is enough to deny the relief. It was further submitted that the Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to correct an entry in the revenue record, which is the job to be performed by the revenue officers functioning under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.